Local News

Natural gas pipeline concerns some in Nashville

Posted September 22, 2014

— When it comes to a proposed natural gas pipeline through eastern North Carolina, Ronald Bunn sees its path as more than a line through a map.

“It is a lot of trouble for this to come through my property,” he said.

Bunn was at a public meeting in Nashville Monday night to question a plan by Duke Energy and Virginia-based Dominion Resources to build the $5 billion pipeline, which would run parallel to Interstate 95.

"Our plan is to find the best route with the least impact to the environment and cultural and historical resources," said Frank Mack, a Dominion spokesperson.

The 550-mile pipeline would deliver natural gas from fracking operations in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to some of the state’s most economically distressed rural counties.

It would also bring construction jobs and an economic boost for the region, Mack said.

The project still requires federal and state approval. If approved, it could be operational by late 2018.

“We are confident we can do it the right way,” he said.

Dominion is sharing its plan through a series of public meetings this week. A similar gathering was also held at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke Monday night.

Other meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn Fayetteville I-95 south and at The Centre at Halifax Community College in Weldon on Tuesday, and at the Johnston County Agricultural Center in Smithfield on Thursday.

In addition to Nash, seven other counties – Cumberland, Halifax, Johnston, Northampton, Robeson, Sampson and Wilson – would be affected by the project.

Monday’s meeting was the second in Nash County. Residents in Red Oak worried last week that the proposed pipeline could reduce property values, threaten water supplies and pose environmental risks.

Nashville residents shared similar concerns, which Mack, the Dominion spokesperson, said would be resolved through working with local authorities.

Kirby Brown, mayor of Dortches, believes the pipeline may be a positive thing for the area – depending on how close residents live to it.

“I am not totally against it. I think it is going to be a good thing,” he said.

For Bunn, the pipeline would run through 3.5 acres of his land, where he just planted hardwoods as a future investment.

“Are they going to move the pipeline for that,” he asked.

Bunn also wondered if the company would pay instead. He didn’t get an answer.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • notexactly Sep 23, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Like I said, my property value is actually higher than those around me. The pipe line on my property is only by a 1/4 acre or so. I have 10 acres so it is not a big deal to me. And you will benefit from the gas that goes through the line if it helps distribute it cheaper. Why do you not get that???? Kinda like my insurance will go down if everyone has it. Not happened yet and will not. The dems don't seem to have an issue with that. I am just saying it didn't make my property value go down, though you cannot build on that part of the property. I do agree with the gas companies paying for the land and or the taxes on the land. I didn't see anything in the article that is taking someones home or their right to live there. I must have missed that part. Or is that just you adding fuel to a fire.

  • xylem01 Sep 23, 2014

    View quoted thread

    LOL! I was thinking the same thing but yet, here they are, here they are.......

  • Terry Watts Sep 23, 2014
    user avatar

    $1 says every person in the story photo voted for the GOP... "drill baby drill!"

  • Djofraleigh Anderson Sep 23, 2014
    user avatar

    Our comments show our prejudices as we reduce this to red/blue politics and name calling put downs. It's sad, this us against them mentality injected into every issue, it seems.

  • Djofraleigh Anderson Sep 23, 2014
    user avatar

    There's no upside to having a gasline on or near your property if you are not getting gas from it. There is a greater public need for pipelines, but NIMBY abides.

    Change the law to make pipelines pay the property tax on the land it requires, or a royalty to those whose land it crosses, and they would be sought after.

  • Anita Woody Sep 23, 2014

    View quoted thread

    That's so generous of you to help out notexactly! Maybe WRAL can do a story on this win-win situation that happened because of the comment forum!?! Congrats notexactly on your winfall.

  • bottleworks Sep 23, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Perfect! Please allow me to help you get an additional forced easements on your property. You said, you welcome it! I have an easement available which will require you to no longer live on your property, however, it will benefit others. Please contact me for further details.

  • miseem Sep 23, 2014

    View quoted thread

    Right. You have never call anyone an unfavorable name. You have shown the utmost respect for the values of the Democratic party even if you disagree with all of them. Sure.

    However, I do think that the gas pipeline will be a boost for the area. Increased industry, cheaper energy can only help property values. The main problem is to insure that the pipeline is well constructed and monitored, and it is regularly checked for integrity and repaired or replaced if needed. The very old pipelines seem to be causing the problems, and that is mainly due to poor maintenance and repair, and pushing them past their expected useful and safe life.

  • jmcdow2792 Sep 23, 2014

    This and the road plans to improve transportation to the coast and ports will spur an economic boom in eastern NC. Now we need to do something for Western NC. Much different situation. Maybe airport based expansions would work.

  • Mannin Black Sep 23, 2014
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Same thing goes with the chicken plant. Blame Obama for the lack of job creation then deny the creation of 1k jobs in their own community.